Objectives: After the release of the results of the Women's Health Initiative, an emerging consensus suggests that continuous-combined hormone therapy (CCHT) should be limited to short-term management of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms. This, in turn, raises the important question of the economic value, if any, of short-term CCHT for this indication. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a 1-year treatment course with 1 mg of norethindrone acetate/5 microg of ethinyl estradiol (1/5 NA/EE) or 0.625 mg/day of conjugated estrogens plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone (0.625/2.5 CEE/MPA) compared with no therapy for the management of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms.
Design: A literature-based Markov model was developed to compare these three options' cost and quality-of-life (QOL) benefits. The impact of therapy on vasomotor symptoms and breakthrough bleeding/spotting on the direct costs of care and QOL were considered.
Results: Compared with no therapy, CCHTs resulted in net increases in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (0.110 for 1/5 NA/NE v 0.104 for 0.625/2.5 CEE/MPA). Net costs (v no therapy) were $167 lower for 1/5 NA/NE compared with 0.625/2.5 CEE/MPA. Cost per QALY gained (compared with no therapy) were $6,200 and $8,200, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was most favorable for individuals with more severe symptoms who were less bothered by breakthrough bleeding/spotting.
Conclusions: A short-term course of CCHT for the sole purpose of managing moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms is cost-effective. However, 1/5 NA/NE seemed to be more cost-effective than 0.625/2.5 CEE/MPA. These findings can be used to further refine the role of CCHT and to improve formulary decisions.